<p>No poetgrl that is not the case. The club teams I’m talking about are Manchester United or Liverpool. To be competitive in soccer most players play full time from the age of 14 in the professional club developmental teams at the team’s expense. Unlike the US the parents are not involved and there are no weekend games or tournaments. Like in most team sports most of the players come from working class or poor backgrounds and college was never on their minds. The system here is all about college and does not produce world class players on the boys side except goal keepers. The few exceptions generally quit college after a year or two and go to europe.</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>This is true.</p>
<p>So, you are saying that the Ivy league has the best male soccer players in the US?</p>
<p>I am saying, no.</p>
<p>They do not. Women’s Ice Hockey. Dartmouth. Dartmouth ski team.</p>
<p>that’s all you’ve got…</p>
<p>The best athletes in the US do not compete in the Ivys. But the athletes who do are quite good students and very successful in life, in general.</p>
<p>Gotta go eat some turkey. ttfn, as tigger says.</p>
<p>What I’m saying is that the ivy male athletes excepting football and basketball are at the same level as the other D1 colleges in sports ability. They choose the ivies for the quality of education and because the ivies can offer such great FA that often exceeds the partial scholarships offered elsewhere. The very top mix of sports/academics with full scholarships include only a few schools(Stanford/Duke/NU/ and maybe ND. But even at these schools most of the boys only get partials outside of the two big sports.</p>
<p>I think the important point is that if a university thought it was in their best interest to eliminate sports they would. This has been discussed in numerous threads. The colleges in question have a long history of “strong minds strong bodies” if they decided they wanted only strong minds I’m sure they would change their priorities.</p>
<p>Imagine a college putting a stake in the ground and saying no sports, no clubs, nothing that isn’t connected with a class… admittance by GPA and test scores only. I’m sure there’d be some takers and then what would they argue about? How many times someone took the SAT to ‘get in’…how unfair it is that K-12 schools have different grade curves. I find the discussion fairly boring, perhaps it is because I’m an adult and understand that it takes all kinds of traits to be a successful contributing member of society and successful is not a synonym for “makes alot of money.” I have no doubt that colleges wish for successful graduates and see that as as some component of their mission. </p>
<p>Jock envy and jock bashing is not something invited by this generation of kids…it’s as old as time. Just go to a corporate team building day and you’ll see that it doesn’t stop when the sheepskin is in hand.</p>
<p>Your observation is interesting, but the view from the younger generation is that those guys at the top are just good-old boy dinosaurs. They were lucky to have been at the right place at the right time, and would not have survived in today’s competitive environment requiring much higher level of quantitative skills.</p>
<p>In Wall Street, for quite some time the prop and quant traders, not the salesmen, have brought home the bacon in Wall Street. At the leadership level, former techies like James Simons and Ken Griffin have certainly done well.</p>
<p>And in high tech, people like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jerry Yang, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, etc. are former techies, not former jocks.</p>
<p>I do think it’s pretty commonly known that if you are white the best way , and about the only way without something really exceptional, to get into H/Y/P is through athletics. Watching a little bit of the Harvard-Yale football game looked like 95% of the players were white. Knowing that I think some families/kids really push on excelling in a sport in order to get into their dream school.</p>
<p>(I should add, though, that all the people I named still do have elite-school pedigrees …)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Nope. Both my daughters went to Ivy schools (D1 to Harvard) and we are a middle class, white family from California. Not athletes. Not minorities. Not rich. Not legacies. No cancer cures or national awards. Just two bright, hardworking kids who did very well in high school. And a lot of their friends at their colleges fit that description too. In fact NONE of their friends, roommates, blockmates, etc are recruited athletes or even walk-ons. To say you need to be an athlete to get in is just simply wrong.</p>
<p>@4thfloor - As you can probably tell from my username I am what you’d probably consider the younger generation. I honestly don’t think (or have a view) that the current guys at the top are there because they are in the good-old boys network. Sure there were a few senior folks who came from reputable/well-known families but I noticed that a lot had the following background: came from a middle class to poor family, got into Ivy because they were stellar athletes (and were of average/slightly above average intelligence), went into banking and rose quickly to the top. I don’t think it was a right place / right time kind of scenario. I would also argue that they would survive in today’s competitive, more quant environment. I saw it in my own analyst class. Our class was comprised of like 60-70% 4.0s indian and asian kids from wharton, harvard, etc., 10% that were there due to connections, 10-15% smart non-asian/indian and non-athletes ivy kids, 10-15% ivy athletes. Those that got promoted the fastest despite the fact that they were not as quant or intelligent were the athletes, a few connection kids, and non-asia/indian & non-athlete ivy kids, . Those that were the quant jockies didnt get promoted and just left…1/2 to 3/4 or so of there ones that were there due to connections also didnt get promoted and just left. </p>
<p>Oh and from a wall st perspective im talking about IBD not sales & trading…</p>
<p>Regarding your observation about some of the tech CEOs, etc. that are techies and non athletes…you definitely see these guys starting the business and they are more the engineering brains behind the firms…if you look deeper though at their management teams…you see less of these engineering geniuses and you start to see more of the athlete types…</p>
<p>
I think people often forget that schools like HYP, aren’t just looking for intellectual powerhouses, they are looking for future leaders - and as we know (Bradley is hardly the most prominent example) high SAT scores don’t seem to be necessary for that.</p>
<p>I’m not a big fan of the boost athletes get, but I do think private schools can do what they want. I never felt that I misunderstood the odds when my kids were applying to school. (My older son did a bit worse than one might predict from his stats, my younger son did a bit better - neither were athletes.)</p>
<p>Just last weekend talked to an old acquaintance whose daughter got recruited at U Penn for field hockey. They actually had no idea going into the process that she was in the running, but the schools she’d been considering even before the recruiting came up were in the same range as Penn. She’s clearly no slouch in the academic department.</p>
<p>
Yeah? Give me 5 names. Seriously, the percentage of MDs at BBs that were Ivy athletes is most likely less than 5%. Enough with the ■■■■■■■■ blanket statements.</p>
<p>
Do you want to provide any factual support for your anecdotal claims? The “quants” that don’t get promoted start their own hedge funds, and they are miles more successful than your “athlete MDs” at GS or MS. Compare your Cliff Asness, Boaz Weinstein, Ken Griffin, Stanley Druckenmiller and James Simons’ with your so called “not as quant or intelligent” “athletes, a few connection kids, and non-asia/indian & non-athlete ivy kids”. </p>
<p>
Again, provide a single legitimate example please? Behind almost every super successful Silicon Valley start up is an “engineering genius” who is running the “management teams” of their respective companies.</p>
<p>@ 4th floor (Post #14)-Not sure about Chicago. There are recruited athletes (baseball/football) there saying Chicago has a different application for recruited athletes which is much less complicated. If true, that would indicate that being a recruit counts for something. I have never heard of a school doing this but this is what these athletes say.</p>
<p>As the OP, I’d like to bring this discussion back to one of the article author’s points, and ask how people feel about what he said. Do you agree with him? Here’s the quote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If recruited Ivy athletes are acceptable even with somewhat lower stats on average, why is there still a fuss over the fact that URMs are admitted to Ivies with somewhat lower stats on average? Why is one okay and the other not? Is it because many or most (all depending on the sport) recruited Ivy athletes are white?</p>
<p>[Evaluative</a> Judgments Vs. Bias In College Admissions - Forbes.com](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/01/college-admissions-race-politics-opinions-best-colleges-10-espenshade-radford.html]Evaluative”>Evaluative Judgments Vs. Bias In College Admissions)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aei.org/docLib/Diplomas%20and%20Dropouts%20final.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aei.org/docLib/Diplomas%20and%20Dropouts%20final.pdf</a>
(this is 80 pages long, so you may not want to read it.)</p>
<p>But, the point is that the Ivy’s are graduating thier students at as high a rate as Stanford and Notre Dame and Pomona, and that Harvard has the highest graduation rate. My point is: no matter if they are recruited athletes or URM’s or advantaged or disadvantaged, if they can graduate from the school, what’s the problem?</p>
<p>This thread is so ho-hum, already been discussed a million times. I know, many of you think Ivy and NESCAC athletes have such a huge advantage, blah blah blah. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Public</a> university athletes score far below classmates on SATs - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-12-30-athletes-sats_n.htm]Public”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-12-30-athletes-sats_n.htm)</p>
<p>Georgia Tech’s football players had the nation’s best average SAT score average, 1,028 of a possible 1,600, and best average high school GPA, 3.39 of a possible 4.0 in the core curriculum.</p>
<p>But Tech’s football players still scored 315 SAT points lower on average than their classmates.</p>
<p>Makes Ivy athletes look like…well, Ivy scholars.</p>
<p>Plainsman,
Addressing your questions in post #54, I do think there is as much fuss over athlete advantage as URM advantage; it is just that you have not been paying attention to the fuss over athletic admissions. However, they are not the same argument because one involves an immutable trait (skin color) while the other involves a developed skill.</p>
<p>That said, I am personally in favor of admissions advantages for both URMs and athletes, if that is what it takes to create the perfect class which benefits all.</p>
<p>
A hearty +1. (Agreed.) In my 35 years (give or take ;)) on this forum I have come to understand that a well-crafted class is an art form in and of itself, albeit a poorly understood art form. I do wish they’d concentrate even more on middle-class “affordability” initiatives (although at the top-most schools it is much better than 5 years ago) and be more aware of SES, but, all in all, when done right, “holistic” trumps “just the stats, ma’am” for me. (And, for the record, my kid was un-hooked/high-stats.) </p>
<p>(Somewhat) OT: My D is now (for the first time in her life) living with the benefits of an extremely well-crafted class “from soup to nuts” (at med school). She is awe-struck but flourishing. In her opinion, which counts much more than mine, they just couldn’t have done a better job of creating the right “mix”. (A “social” med school? 
Who knew? ;))</p>
<p>Could I have (possibly) “used” (if that is the right “use” of the word “used”) (in the above post) (even) more parentheses (“()”) and “quotation marks” or “quote-marks” (“”'s)? Jeebus. I need “more” coffee or “ocb” (other caffeinated beverage). Or maybe I have a tumor (“as yet” un-diagnosed). (Hopefully) someone will be able to read (or “sift”) through the “jibberish” and find something (somewhat) redeeming about the “post”. (O.K… I have to stop. “Walk away from the keyboard”. ;))</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Same here. Although I have been more critical of athletic recruiting on various threads because of the scandals at some schools from recruiting “students” who 1. Aren’t the least bit interested in getting an education but instead are just trying out for the pros, and 2. Have academic abilities so low that they have no business being in a college classroom, or 3. Both. At least affirmative action admits are there to get educated. </p>
<p>As long as the academic stats of either athletes or affirmative action kids are within a respectable striking distance of the rest of the class, I have no problem with either of them. They both bring valuable benefits to the college community. It’s when the schools lower their standards to the point of being embarrassing that I object.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said.</p>